Why McCain/Romney Doesn't Work (Yet)

Trust.

There is no single more important qualification, from the standpoint of the person who picks the vice presidential nominee, than trust. This is what John McCain's veepstakes czar will surely advise him, lest he (she?) be guilty of malpractice.

And John McCain, although he brings people in and out of his inner circle with surprising ease, doesn't trust all but a handful of people, usually folks who have suffered along with him. The presidential race doesn't cut it. No amount of assurances, cajoling, convincing, pressuring and persuading can build a level of trust between Mitt Romney and John McCain.

Comments

Not to mention that maybe Romney might just hope for a McCain defeat in '08 so that the Republicans will nominate him in '12.

Posted by Archana | March 11, 2008 10:34 AM

No need for McCain to take such a risk when the Dems are imploding. He can afford to play it safe.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | March 11, 2008 10:35 AM

There is no way McCain will pick Romney. No way. Why? Because Romney is a Mormon and many on the religious right don't consider that to be a Christian religion. Romney will not solidify that part of the base, and McCain needs his VP to bring in those from the religious right, above all other things. Romney would actually do the exact opposite -- he would cause a chunk of the religious right to stay home in November, and that's the last thing McCain needs. It's sad to think that being a Mormon DQ's someone from being President in the US in 2008, but it does. The prejudice is just amazing.

Posted by Doug | March 11, 2008 10:57 AM

Marc, OK, you say McCain/Romney doesn't work (yet), because of trust. Fair enough, but that (yet) certainly makes it sound like the door could (yet) open. (Yet) then you say, "No amount of assurances, cajoling, convincing, pressuring and persuading can build a level of trust between Mitt Romney and John McCain."

So which is it? It doesn't work (yet), or it will never work?

matt, I would have thought that Romney was a safe choice; who do you see as a risky choice?

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 11, 2008 11:03 AM

There is a real dream team out there for McCain and Obama.

It is the joint Obama-McCain ticket.

Posted by D | March 11, 2008 11:16 AM

There's already a smart choice for McCain to tap for VP. He won't do it, but it'd certainly stun everyone and probably get him elected.

Before you scoff, consider for a moment:

McCain/Clinton.

People have already talked about McCain reaching across the aisle for a VP. This would be a huge show of bipartisanship. It'd put a woman on his ticket, and make his ticket younger. She's strong where he's weak -- domestic issues, economic issues that resonate with middle America -- and she'd bring a host of her followers who will be furious if she doesn't win the Democratic nomination. True, the far right wing would be up in arms, but that might only help McCain sway even more independents by showing that he's a maverick who sees beyond party politics.

Why would SHE take the slot? Well, she's already expressed her admiration for McCain, far exceeding her Democratic opponent -- if you've wondered why a Dem would praise the Republican over her fellow Dem, here's a reason: she knows she's going to lose her party's nod, but thinks she can get on his ticket. Clintonites like the idea of power at any cost, so they won't much care how she gets inside the White House -- especially if her first option (being the Dem nominee) is off the table. And, without being too morbid about it, being VP to an elderly president...well, I won't finish the sentence, but you know it's on some people's minds regardless of who McCain picks.

It'd be a strange ticket -- quite literally the past running against the future, fear running against hope. (Then again, isn't that already pretty much the theme for both McCain and Clinton?) But it would give McCain the chance to offer a tiny bit of "change" (the first female VP, if he's elected), and it would completely remake the political map of this country. I'd bet that this ticket could win the South easily, the Midwest and rust belt, plains and mountains. And, if McCain could present himself as a more moderate Republican who's not afraid to embrace Clinton, he'd actually stand a chance in the Northeast, too (New Hampshire, New York in particular).

I know, it'll never happen. And I hope it doesn't. But suspend disbelief for a second and think: It'd be a shrewd choice.

Posted by Wayne | March 11, 2008 11:25 AM

Wayne,

What about running Vicki Iseman?

Posted by D | March 11, 2008 11:42 AM

By far the weirdest thing about Barnes's endorsement of Romney is this: Barnes disqualifies several candidates on the basis that they don't have a background in "world affairs," thus depriving McCain of a potential line of attack on Obama (i.e., how can you criticize me when you chose a running mate with less foreign policy experience than I have?). What's weird is that Barnes's choice, Romney, is pretty clearly disqualified on that basis, unless managing the Salt Lake City Olympics now counts as foreign policy experience (I guess if touring Kosovo with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow counts, everything does).

Posted by Kevin | March 11, 2008 11:51 AM

John McCain not implicitly trusting his VP--who after all occupies his own Constitutional position, and is not 100% the President's man, theoretically--may be a minor irritant with few practical consequences, but one that would go a long way to calming the fears of conservatives. In short, I think it would be a plus, a big plus.

I mean, what does the VP really do, anyway?

Let go, John. Trust yourself. Pick someone you don't necessarily trust-but that conservatives do. You could reap large rewards--as a sign of mutual faith.

Posted by S. Wallace | March 11, 2008 12:57 PM

Is it me or did Mitt Romney flame out spectacularly? There seems to be people out there that think that, well, maybe it just wasn't Romney's time. But did he make inroads anywhere besides Michigan and Utah? No. I mean, I see how Romney put a lot of people's kids through college (people who make banners, TV commercials, shiny brochures) but who else walked away impressed with him?

I just fear that Romney buys the hype that says he is like Ronald Reagan in 1976, a conservative standard bearer just waiting to run again in the next presidential election.

Part of me wants to see John McCain pick Romney so Romney will be saddled with another unsuccessful campaign under his belt and that way he could disappear from the national stage.

Posted by Thomas | March 11, 2008 1:36 PM

I'm not sure it doesn't work, but it would be a good economy boost ticket.

BTW I found some fantastic articles…A MUST read for EVERYONE “The Hussein Dynamic” at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=171 and “Follow the Money” at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165

The writing is BRILLIANT and goes beyond what the MSM feeds us. It was about time!!!!! Their sections for “Humor” and “Political Analysis” are FANTASTIC!!!!

http://savagepolitics.com

Posted by Elsy | March 11, 2008 1:49 PM

Not to mention that maybe Romney might just hope for a McCain defeat in '08 so that the Republicans will nominate him in '12.
Posted by Archana

Nope, he will work his balls off for McCain as VP or not, hoping McCain either gets in as a one-term President or at least makes a stronger showing thank's to Mitt's work. That is what Nixon did for 8 years between 60 and 68, what Reagan did between 64 and 80. What Hillary did between 2000 and 2008. They were all tremndous help to the Party and various candidates.

MY's off base - Trust.
There is no single more important qualification, from the standpoint of the person who picks the vice presidential nominee, than trust.

No one in JFK's camp trusted LBJ. LBJ didn't trust Humprey as much as work him as a tool. Reagan didn't trust Bush I - he just saw him as a good ticket-enhancer who knew foreign affairs. Clinton, as insiders report, didn't trust AlGore much and didn't really think that highly of him. The word was he was selected basically as the only credible choice who voted for the Gulf War and had a Centrist voting record.

Kevin - What's weird is that Barnes's choice, Romney, is pretty clearly disqualified on that basis, unless managing the Salt Lake City Olympics now counts as foreign policy experience.

McCain has plenty of foreign policy on the military and diplomatic side. Romney's foreign experience, unique among the candidates that ran this year, was in visiting countries and negotiating economic agreements for his international clients between America, American businesses, foreign goverments, overseas businesses located in Europe, Asia, the ME, and Latin America. Romney has done extensive travel.

Right now, the economic side of foreign affairs, with our now long record of defeats against competition overseas, the tax disadvantage of our trading, the failure of our trade agreements - and how we best change for future economic challenge is perhaps MORE IMPORTANT than John McCains knowledge and skills. Like knowing how good the Kuwaiti Air Force is or how his "good friends" in Geneva can craft a statement "double-deploring" the Burma government.

It goes without saying that Hillary was limited in foreign policy experience to teas with other 1st Ladies or Husbands, and travelling with Sinbad.
And Obama's self-proclaimed "superior foreign policy judgment" is predicated on a 6-year old speech, being born biracial and Muslim, having Muslim relatives in Africa and Indonesia "that keep me informed" in Obama's words, and of course his 6 years as a Kiddie expat, which by that logic makes my firm's security sargeant, 6 years spent as an expat teen in KSA and Bahrain, into a ME policy expert.

Posted by chris ford | March 11, 2008 6:51 PM